While Republican's insist on tying up our troops in Iraq and pursuing their failing strategy in the Middle East, terrorism is increasing and slowly spreading around the world. The conservative idea that we can simply "win" in Iraq, and that would be a major win against al Qaeda is a naive fantasy as we have seen today with the bombing in Glasgow.
Isn't it time we pull out troops out of Iraq and use them to combat worldwide terrorism (and kill bin Laden, remember?) before it gets to the point where it can't be stopped?
2007-06-30 12:51:37 · 19 answers · asked by Jason 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
hell ya.......but how...bills will pass the legislature but Bush wll veto everything.....let's face it bush ain't signing nothing to pull the troops out no matter how hard we try but it's up to the republicans....once bush's party turns on him then the troops will come home....
2007-06-30 13:17:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
My answer will be a bit in the middle.
I think both parties didn't acknowledge terrorism or rather extreme muslim teachings for sometime. It's not anything new, really. Has been going on for the better part of 1500 years.
Clintons admin took a lot of hits...Cole, World Trade Center 94' attacks, UN embassy hits...etc. I won't say any of this wasn't semi-ignored by both sides, but Clinton should have been more weary. He had opportunties to get Bin, but he failed to act on it.
The current admin did have intelligience on 9/11, but because the intelligience infrastructure was so poor, they didn't have an appropriate level of translators to look throughout the data and clarify whether or not it was a threat.
I do not agree with Bush's decesion to enter the war (at the time he did or with the lack of prudence), but I'm fundamentally weary of idealism...especially from the 'left' when it comes to leaving a vacuum in the middle east. It's one thing to be a bit careless about Palestine, because they have very little finances in comparison to a vacuum in Iraq.
So I wouldn't say a supporter of holding out is not a supporter on the broader war on terror. I think the war on terror should be more or less fought like Reagan fought the cold war. We need to invest into radio 'propaganda' for individualism and appropriate government. We need to influence the masses that way, and avoid physical conflicts if we can.
Seems to be happening in Iran, and I think too few people are focusing on what needs to be looked at. The people of Iran, just like the people of the general middle east desire peace. But peace only can be afforded if it's defended morally and sometimes physically.
Idealism and foreign policy don't mix, and I would reccomend that you pause on that. No matter how silly Bush acts, you have to think out the consequence of your own assertions.
2007-06-30 20:17:03 · answer #2 · answered by Rick 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What more should republicans do? You are right. Getting (or kiling ) Ben Laden would be great. But he is only apart of a complicated network that doesn't nessesarily take orders from one leader. I think that we need a lot more intelligence because of how hidden these terror cells are.
Bush went into Iraq to get a guy who had already killed tens (possibly hundreds ) of thousands of people with WMDs. Every intel agency in the world said he had them. He wouldn't listen to the U.N. And it was only a matter of time before he started supporting terrorism on the West. Would you like Bush to ignore a threat like Sadam?
2007-06-30 19:58:34 · answer #3 · answered by lend322 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
You're using irrational judgement. To fight any problem you must seek it's "Heart". The "Heart of terrorism at this time lies with religious fanatics who's main base of operation lies in the middle east. To say pulling out of Iraq and fighting terrorism around the world is a better strategy, is like saying it's better to shoot someone in the toe than in the head. You have to find the people responsible for inciting the terrorism and they aren't going to be straying to far from the area that feeds them with arms, money and people willing to die for their twisted ideals. Sorry, you are just plain wrong!
2007-06-30 20:06:25 · answer #4 · answered by LAUREN N 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Actually by making Iraq a front line in the war on terror we have tied up terrrorist groups in combat in that Country, Al Quada has named Iraq as the main battle area. There have been far fewer attacks world wide than there were in the 90s.
2007-06-30 19:58:58 · answer #5 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
You need to understand why America is seen as the cause of the problem. It started w. the first Gulf War which though it gave us cheap oil through the 90's was certainly not worth winning because that led to the hatred that caused 9/11 which led to Gulf War 2 for oil; now we are entrenched losing our freedoms while trying to occupy a country that doesn't want to be occupied, you can't win any war against guerrillas, just battles, (even just to control the world's oil market). Even the British Empire couldn't beat the American revolutionary insurgents and France in North America! The thing to sort now is the Israeli problem, the US created a Jewish State in the Middle East, imagine if Russia had created a Communist State in say In. Give the Israelis Rode Island or some such scrub land and have done w. it.
2007-06-30 20:09:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
They already have by fighting the terrorists were they are; in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where as the Democrats want to leave them alone so they can come after us here in the USA.
2007-06-30 20:47:54 · answer #7 · answered by A question or two... 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Hmm, I agree. Let's seek out Al-Qaeda where ever they are. Since they're mainly IN IRAQ, let's start there.
Seems we have Hillary Parrot on here.
WE ARE FIGHTING AL QAEDA IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW. England isn't going to let us start military operations there. Iraq is letting us go after them. Germany isn't going to let us. We are finding them in IRAQ.
WHERE do you propose we retreat to, in order to let Al-Qaeda start a new battle in a new country?
2007-06-30 19:58:38 · answer #8 · answered by John T 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
ROFLMAO
Just in case you didn't know, the republicans/conservatives are the ones fighting terrorists. The number of liberal democrats that are fighting is about 3%. I'm not a repub so don't blame me for showing you the truth.
2007-06-30 20:15:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
This is the biggest pile of horsepucky I've seen in a long time. It's the old, "a good offense is the best defense" ploy. It sounds good when you say it fast, but it's completely transparent and won't wash. Nice try but no cigar.
2007-06-30 20:00:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Worldwide terrorism begins and ends in Iraq..................Semper Fi
2007-06-30 19:59:12 · answer #11 · answered by LAVADOG 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋